Clute v. McCrea

New York Supreme Court

Clute v. McCrea

1 N.Y.S. 96, 15 N.Y. St. Rep. 857, 48 Hun 617, 1888 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1201

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 14, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 N.Y.S. 96 (Clute v. McCrea) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clute v. McCrea, 1 N.Y.S. 96, 15 N.Y. St. Rep. 857, 48 Hun 617, 1888 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1201 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Barnard, P. J.

The answer avers a loan and advance of money by the defendant to the plaintiff, “ which he promised to pay or apply as defendant might direct, no part of which has been repaid.” This part of the answer was held bad on demurrer at special term, and the general term reversed this order. The opinion stated that the words made out a good cause of action; that the law implied a promise from the fact of the loan; and that no demand was necessary, and need not be averred. The opinion did not insert the words “or apply” following the word “pay,” and for that reason a reargument is asked. The omitted words do not change’the rule of law. A promise to pay or apply the moneys of the defendant is merely a promise to pay. If no-direction be given to apply the loan to any specific purpose, the promise to repay the money can be enforced without a demand like other loans. The motion should be denied, without costs.

Dykman and Pratt, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Barnard, P. J.

The answer avers a loan and advance of money by the defendant to the plaintiff, “ which he promised to pay or apply as defendant might direct, no part of which has been repaid.” This part of the answer was held bad on demurrer at special term, and the general term reversed this order. The opinion stated that the words made out a good cause of action; that the law implied a promise from the fact of the loan; and that no demand was necessary, and need not be averred. The opinion did not insert the words “or apply” following the word “pay,” and for that reason a reargument is asked. The omitted words do not change’the rule of law. A promise to pay or apply the moneys of the defendant is merely a promise to pay. If no-direction be given to apply the loan to any specific purpose, the promise to repay the money can be enforced without a demand like other loans. The motion should be denied, without costs.

Dykman and Pratt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 N.Y.S. 96, 15 N.Y. St. Rep. 857, 48 Hun 617, 1888 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clute-v-mccrea-nysupct-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack